Both texts examine the repressive actions of the state and the subsequent resistance

of individuals against it.

Both texts allow for a better understanding of the moral complexities inherent in standing
by our beliefs through the demonstration of the conflict between
civic duty and family loyalty.
Sophocles makes a social comment on power dynamics within society – Shamsie picks up
this social commentary in her hypertext and creates a discourse

I) DEFINITIONS:
The Home Secretary is head of the Home Office and a senior cabinet member in Britain. The
Home Secretary is largely responsible for national security and immigration in the United
Kingdom. In HOME FIRE, Karamat Lone is appointed Home Secretary at the beginning of the
novel.

MI5 is Britain’s domestic counter-intelligence and security agency, the equivalent of the
Homeland Security department in the United States. In the book, agents from MI5 come
to Isma, Aneeka, and Parvaiz’s home after Adil leaves to become a jihadi in Bosnia.

A jihadi is an Islamic militant. In HOME FIRE, Adil is a jihadi fighter in Bosnia in the
1990s. ISIS is a group that is comprised of jihadis, and the women they recruit to marry male
soldiers (whom Parvaiz is involved in recruiting) are known as “jihadi brides.”
Jihad = struggle ----- jihadi is a Islamic warrior.

ISIS (also known as ISIL) is a terrorist militant group that follows a

fundamentalist jihadist doctrine of Sunni Islam. ISIS gained global prominence in 2014 when
it drove Iraqi government forces out of key cities, then captured Mosul. Since then, it has
conducted attacks on government forces in Syria, and by December 2015, it held a large
area from western Iraq to eastern Syria, enforcing sharia law there. In HOME FIRE,
Parvaiz leaves to join ISIS in Syria.

Sophocles - Sophocles’ criticism of the expectation that people should follow the state
without question was influenced by the rise of Athenian democracy in the 5th Century BC.
He introduces the issue of duty to family versus duty to the state through the conflict
between Creon, ruler of Thebes, and Antigone, his niece, and martyrs her as a hero in her
burial of Polynices, her brother. Sophocles demonstrates his social commentary on
imbalance of power within society through the inability of autocracy to balance order in
both ‘polis’ (state) and ‘oikos’ (family) during a time of everlasting divine law – this fosters
civil disobedience.
The inability to balance between loyalty to state (polis) and loyalty to family (oikos).
Sophocles integrating the patriarchal society of Ancient Greece into the interactions
between characters.
The ancient Greek word oikos refers to three related but distinct concepts: the family, the
family's property, and the house. The oikos was the basic unit of society in most Greek city-
states. In normal Attic usage the oikos, in the context of families, referred to a line of descent
from generation to the next.
ANTIGONE the play – can be referred to as the “eponymous” play – named after the main
character
Antigone the character – can be referred to as the “titular” character – her name is the
name of the title of the text.
In their exploration and questioning of morality and society, Shamsie and Sophocles
construct stories in which the foundations of society's knowledge and assumptions are
challenged. HOME FIRE and ANTIGONE are not stories to be viewed in isolation of their
context but reflect the socio-political landscape they were produced in. They are particularly
profound and unsettling examples of confronting mortality and the responsibility of
enforcing and understanding it. The texts are not solely pieces of literature; they do not
provide answers to one's questions- they ask the questions that need to be answered.
Additionally, both text reflect the notion that a person must either accept and conform to
the social conventions of their time or suffer the consequences.

II) CONTEXT
Shamsie - A POST 9/11 FICTION + a heteroglossic novel or a novel with heteroglossic
elements or a text that employs heteroglossia - These phrases convey the idea that the
work incorporates multiple voices or languages within its narrative structure.
Heteroglossia refers to the coexistence of multiple voices, languages, or discourses within
a literary work or within a particular social context.
She denounces the condemnation of Muslims in non-Muslim countries as a result of the
racist post 9/11 attitudes.
Shamsie presents a contemporary perspective to depict how democracy’s xenophobia and
Islamophobia to combat terrorism, initiates adversity against the individuals of the Muslim
community. Shamsie condemns British-Muslim politician Karamat’s disregard for others’
choices and reveals how British-Muslim citizen Aneeka’s decision to defy the state’s orders
results in her death. Shamsie denounces the condemnation of Muslims in non-Muslim
countries as a result of the racist post 9/11 attitudes.
HOME FIRE conveys how the governments rule inevitably oppresses and denies the moral
rights of Muslim people through the modern interpretation of the political landscape,
exacerbated by post 9/11 xenophobia and particularly Islamophobia. Shamsie reflecting on
islamophobia within contemporary British society as a British woman living in Britain.
Both texts were written in eras of major social upheaval when the public's perception of
autonomy and authority undergoing a metamorphosis. This implies that the societies in
which the texts are set were undergoing major changes and transformations, particularly in
terms of how people perceived concepts like autonomy (the right to self-governance) and
authority (the power to enforce rules or make decisions).
Personal morality and ethics form a significant part of ANTIGONE and HOME FIRE's primary
conflicts. It is essential to explore how change in temporal (time - historical) and geographic
context influenced the stories. In both texts, conflicts arise from clashes between different
individuals' moral values and ethical principles. These conflicts are central to the narratives
of the works. Sophocles and Shamsie, incorporated elements from their respective time
periods and settings to shape the ethical standards presented in their works. By doing so,
they critique societies that exhibit excessive compliance with certain institutions (such as the
state or religion) or portray them as villains.
Sophocles and Shamsie utilise factors that shape ethical standards, particularly the state
and religion, to critique societies with excessive compliance or villainisation of either
element – religion or politics.
Thus, both texts address ideas related to personal morality and ethics within the backdrop of
major social changes. The authors utilise factors like the influence of the state and religion to
criticise societies that overly conform to or demonise these elements.

NOTHING BELOW IS FOR A SIMPLE COPY AND PASTE – THESE ARE NOTES TO USE AND
LEARN FROM BUT .... YOU MANIPULATE AND MANOEUVRE THESE TO SUIT YOUR OWN
ARGUMENTS.
Page Numbers are there for you to look at the examples IN CONTEXT of the text.

III) STATE CONTROL, FEAR CREATED BY GOVERNMENT and POLICE

HARRASSMENT – Authoritarian rule v’s Democracy
Pages 5, 38,39, 42, 49-50-1, 94, 126, 132, 198!!!, 214, 218, 225 – STATE CONTROL, FEAR
CREATED BY Government and POLICE HARRASSMENT.

PAGE 5 “Do you consider yourself British?” the man said.

“I am British.”
“But do you consider yourself British?”
“I’ve lived here all my life.” She meant there was no other country of which she could feel
herself a part, but the words came out sounding evasive.
Despite the fact that she makes a conscious effort not to bring anything that could raise
flags, she is detained for two hours and receives an extensive check of her bag and an
interview—she is targeted for her hijab and perhaps, as readers later discover, because her
father and brother had both joined terrorist organizations. At a time of great fear and
suspicion following/in the aftermath of 9/11 – interrogated by authorities.
Here her loyalty is being questioned specifically because of her faith! Shamsie uses this scene
to point out how Muslims are often forced to assimilate and shed the markers of their faith,
which can turn them into outsiders in their own country. The security officer is viewing Isma
through the lens of a stereotype, ignoring her individuality and making assumptions based
on her appearance, her race, and her family. This pointed question about her identity and
her nationality illustrates the fact that a Muslim person’s faith is often set against their
nationality in Britain. By using truncated sentence in her declaration that she is British,
Shamsie characterises her as someone who feels a deep connection to the state she belongs
to, and this informs on her actions later on.
PAGE 38 - Yes, Dr. Shah, if you look at colonial laws you’ll see plenty of precedent for
depriving people of their rights; the only difference is this time it’s applied to British citizens,
and even that’s not as much of a change as you might think, because they’re rhetorically
being made un-British […] The 7/7 terrorists were never described by the media as “British
terrorists.” Even when the word “British” was used, it was always “British of Pakistani
descent” or “British Muslim” or, my favourite, “British passport holders,” always something
interposed between their Britishness and terrorism.
Precedence of “otherness” (anyone who is alienated or on the outskirts of mainstream
society) – through flashback – THE IMPORTANCE OF RHETORIC IN ALIENATING OTHERS.
This quote comes out of a flashback that Isma has while she is visiting her mentor, Dr. Hira
Shah. Shah is discussing the curtailing of freedoms in Britain, but Isma points out that many
British citizens’ rights have been curtailed for a long time (paradoxically for the
“protection of its people – universal concept – look at continuum of time) —by casting
them as something other than British. This again illustrates the separation of Muslims from
their British nationality - simply because the broader public thinks that their faith somehow
makes them less British.
Page 9 / 39 – the psychological impact of surveillance and interrogation on individual
p39 – Isma - Intimidation, voiceless, lack of agency – “habits of secrecy are damaging
things” - the psychological impact on the individual
p 50 - “It’s harder for him,” he said. “Because of his background. Early on, in particular, he
had to be more careful than any other MP, and at times that meant doing things he
regretted. But everything he did, even the wrong choices, were because he had a sense of
purpose. Public service, national good, British values […].”
There he sat, his father’s son. It didn’t matter if they were on this or that side of the
political spectrum, or whether the fathers were absent or present, or if someone else had
loved them better, loved them more: in the end they were always their fathers' sons.
Ignoring his loyalty to culture and religion FOR POWER. This statement by Eamonn also
illustrates how Karamat actually reinforces the division between these two identities: he
expects others to follow his example by distancing themselves from their faith in favour of
their nationality, and this in turn forces Muslims like Isma to prioritize their faith above their
nationality—instead of being able to embrace both sides of their identity.
Page 198 – “... (Government) will introduce a clause to make it possible to strip any British
passport holder of their citizenship.... Karamat - “citizenship is a privilege not a right or
birthright”’’
“statelessness is a tool of despots, not democrats”
Page 247 - Karamat has discarded his Muslim identity in order to become Home Secretary -
“used his identity as a Muslim to win, then jettisoned it when it started to damage him,”
revealing how his duty towards society has broken his personal connections, again
paralleling Creon.
Pages 87/88 - Karamat, in response to socio-political factors, discredits his own religious
integrity by adopting a xenophobic perspective for Muslims when he vocalises his belief that
if Muslim people “Set (them)selves apart in the way (they) to attach to (their) loyalties”
they deserve to be “treated differently”.
He condones the compromising of Muslim traditions – for Muslim to relent/yield/be
acquiescent or submit to their zeitgeist/social context/ socio-cultural context - paralleling
Creon’s abandonment of ‘oikos’ to enforce the state.
From people’s responses – nationalistic, Christian values, isolationist policies and
xenophobic. Inclusion of “#wolfpack” as well as the newspaper articles reflect the Chorus in
ANTIGONE – voicing public opinion.

Pages 89-90 – Karamat’s speech - British social expectations for Muslims to always heed
the state are established in Karamat’s speech

 We should all be treated equally but – asking Muslim audience to conform to

standards of being “British”. The proper way of being British
 Us vs them in his speech – confrontational, manipulative (his audience young),
hypocritical, advocating for state rules whilst critiquing family and religious values.
 The intolerance of different, intolerant of the “other” in society.
 The person who speaks for the state is not clear cut
 The broad ideas:
 You can be different but not in this way - because it’s the kind of difference that is
unacceptable – “You are, we are, British. ... don’t set yourself apart in the way you
dress, the way you think, the outdated codes of behaviour you cling to, the
ideologies to which you attach your loyalties. Because if you do, you will be treated
differently.” – similar to Creon, Karamat is asking audience to conform to state’s
ideologies, neglecting students own personal values and ideals.
Shamsie condemns Karamat’s renouncement of his Muslim heritage and oppression of his
own people in Britain as Sophocles had condemned Creon’s tyrannical rule and disregard
of his own family.
III) STATE POWER’S EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF ETHICAL STANDARDS
p188 – This creation of a political corpse in both texts represents the dangers of a state's
exclusive control of ethical standards and penetration into the private domain, especially in
the dehumanising approach conventionally associated with state action - when Parvaiz's
corpse being denied burial in Britain and British citizenship withdrawn due to his
involvement in ISIS. Karamat, Creon's mirror and the Home Secretary, states that burying
"those who turn against the soil of Britain" would "sully that very soil" when asked about
Parvaiz. By referring to all traitors of Britain as a collective when asked about an individual,
Karamat makes Parvaiz the representation for every supposed enemy of the state, in doing
so, Shamsie politicises his existence and burial.
[It is worth noting that funeral rites were one of the most sacred rituals in Ancient Greece,
and the absence of them was considered a great violation of the corpse and its honour. The
action's cruelty and immorality are further emphasised in Sophocles' presentation of Creon,
stating that animals will consume Polynices' body- not only dishonouring but physically
defiling him – as I am sure it is the same for the Islamic religion – as with ALL RELIGIONS.]
Thus, this creation of a political corpse in both texts represents the dangers of a state's
exclusive control of ethical standards and penetration into the private domain, especially in
the dehumanising approach conventionally associated with state action.
Both texts position their leading protagonist to stand in explicit opposition to the state,
arguing that the body is a sacred site that exists beyond the state's disciplinary apparatuses
and which, by virtue of its materiality and divine law, cannot be separated from its rights.
Their opposition to the state results in their existence being put in an indistinctive state
between death and life – so both text show this socio-political exclusion
p208 – The consequences of societal tribalising are expressed through Shamsie’s
heteroglossic chapters, when Aneeka’s cousin tries distancing himself from Aneeka: “Take
off the hijab... You can pray over the grave, and leave. Do not call me. Do not call my
mother” His anaphoric parataxis language emphasises how Karamat’s demonisation of
entire religions prompts the distrust and conflict within these communities ---- Shamsie in
shaping our understanding of our interconnected world compels us to recognise the role we
play in limiting the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes.
p225 – Creon’s megalomaniac actions are mirrored by Karamat in HOME FIRE – however,
reshaped by our highly polarised and globalised world today. He categorises Parvaiz as a
traitor of the State saying, “Heads impaled on spikes. Bodies thrown into unmarked graves.
There are people who follow these practices. Her brother left Britain to join them.”
Emphasised by parallel syntax - religiously allusive diction + the collectivised ‘them’
conflates/coalesces/fuses these acts of terror as being common within the Islam faith,
fuelling the already rampant Islamophobia in many Western countries.
IV) PRESERVATION OF OUR OWN IDENTITIES AND
MORALS/LOYALTIES
Page 55 – loss of cultural identity of KARAMAT
ANEEKA - Sophocles establishes that preserving our identities and morals are fundamental
to our human condition. This identity preservation is explored in HOME FIRE through
Aneeka’s demanding of change. Aneeka’s defiance of the expectations for her to hide her
culture through the motif of her hijab in, “Aneeka then pulls the lid off the casket... her
hijab falls off, revealing her long hair.” The hijab symbolises oppression, compliance and
prejudice against Muslims in British society and the removal of it demonstrates Aneeka's
subversion of the repression - Shamsie represents defiance of the state and social
conventions – eventually this brings about her demise but also shows her bravery in
remaining true to her identity and her morals!
At the British Compound, Aneeka vividly describes the juxtaposition of her surroundings
between the beauty of nature and the dilapidation of human’s divisive creations: p210 -
“...banyan trees, their ancient overground roots more enduring than wire rusting... Here
she would sit with her brother until the world changed or both of them crumbled into the
soil.” In comparing herself to the ancient banyan trees, she reveals the importance of one’s
raw identity in outliving contrived stereotypes, justifying her willingness to defy Karamat’s
rule p225 - “for justice”. Justice in freeing herself, her brother, and the Islamic community
from the prison of societal labels.
Aneeka’s resolve disregards the social standard set by Karamat, she rhetorically confronts
the audience when speaking to media - p194 - “would you stop to help the people you love
the most?”, showing her willingness to breach any laws as she seeks to right the wrongs that
offend the Muslim community’s essential rights and humanity. Shamsie reveals the complex
interaction between post 9/11 socio-political standards and perceptions of the Muslim
religion and hence, the assured dissatisfaction that individuals hold against the state.
Aneeka’s alienation from British society is metaphorically represented in “hold a shell to
your ear and you can still hear the ocean it came from,” as her loyalty and determination to
bury her brother entails her death. Ultimately, Shamsie reveals how personal and social
values can create internal turmoil which results in the demise of the individual.
After Parvaiz's death, Shamsie describes the kitchen as being "filled with food for mourners
who didn't come" - p191 - The radicalisation of Parvaiz's identity by the media and the state
resulted in Aneeka and her family's complete alienation. Similar to ANTIGONE, his death is
not mourned, and Aneeka is punished in her efforts to mourn him, resulting in social
isolation. Aneeka's metaphorical death is different to Antigone's in that she is not physically
silenced or isolated, but socially and politically alienated. This is exemplified in an article
released by the media, referring to Aneeka as "Hojabi" and accusing her of "us(ing) sex to
try and brainwash (Eamonn)" -p204. Shamsie’s use of Islamophobic and sexist rhetoric in
the article reflects the hegemonic nature of the society it was produced in. Aneeka
effectively loses her voice and story following her brother's death; instead, it is told for her
by those in power and privilege.
In HOME FIRE, religion and faith are used as facets of identity to present the aristocracy's
ideals by highlighting the function of cultural hegemony in Britain and the harmful effects of
a society that excessively villainises a group. Aneeka's relationship with religion heavily
contrasts Antigone's, finding the divine, not following and adhering to divine jurisdiction, but
personal spirituality. This idea is especially evident when Aneeka talks about her hijab, a
widely criticised and misinterpreted facet of the Muslim identity. Shamsie frames the hijab
as a political instrument of somatic liberation: "I get to choose which parts of me I want
strangers to look at" - p72. The hijab does not symbolise her entrapment under ancestral
legacy, but her ownership and authority towards her body. Her exercise of control over her
own body and relationship with religion is further explored when Aneeka, after spending the
night with Eamonn, starts the morning in prayer. When asked why she is praying, she replies,
"Prayer isn't about transaction, Mr. Capitalist. It's about starting the day right." - p70. The
characterisation of Aneeka as someone deeply religious, but not in the conventional sense,
works to eliminate the expectation of religious uniformity and violence frequently associated
with the Muslim identity. Shamsie juxtaposes the reader's assumptions with reality to
highlight the dangers of generalisations and villainisation of identity.

In her novel, Shamsie explores the character dynamics between Shamsie, Karamat, and
Parvaiz. Karamat's rejection of Parvaiz's repentance for joining a jihadi path is depicted as a
reflection of the prevailing social conventions of that time. Shamsie portrays Aneeka in a
sympathetic light to criticize both Karamat and the British media's response to Parvaiz's
quest for redemption.
To draw a parallel with the Greek tragedy ANTIGONE, Shamsie highlights Aneeka's defiance
against the demonisation of Muslims in British society, similar to how Antigone defied
Creon's orders to bury her brother. Aneeka's commitment to being with Parvaiz challenges
the prejudices and stereotypes faced by Muslims, ultimately leading to her tragic demise.
Shamsie also explores Aneeka's resistance against societal expectations and cultural
assimilation through the symbol of her hijab. In a poignant scene, Aneeka unveils the
contents of a casket, causing her hijab to slip off, revealing her long hair. “Aneeka then pulls
the lid off the casket... her hijab falls off, revealing her long hair.” This act symbolises her
rejection of the oppression and prejudice experienced by Muslims in British society. Similarly
to Antigone's rebellion against the ancient Greek belief in female subservience, Aneeka's
choice to wear her hijab challenges Karamat's belief that Muslims should keep their culture
concealed.
Shamsie presents Aneeka's tragic fate as a consequence of her defiance against societal
norms and the state, while also acknowledging her bravery in standing up for her beliefs.
Shamsie illustrates the consequences of defying societal norms in the conflict between lsma, who
followed the state, and Aneeka, who was loyal to her family. Shamsie wrote in the post 9/11 world,
where there were rising tensions between the Western world and the Middle East that caused an
influx of prejudice against Muslims in those countries. Muslims in British society were expected to
‘lay low’ so to speak and not draw attention to themselves = ''You (lsma) betrayed us, both of us...
We have no sister” emphasises the weight of lsma’s betrayal of her family when she sells out Parvaiz
to the officials and conveys that her loyalties were with the state. Her conformity to British belief that
Muslims should act subservient reflects lsmene’s passive stance in the conflict between Antigone and
Creon. Despite the different time Shamsie wrote in, she presents how the state influences the
differing loyalties between lsma and Aneeka and eventuated in Aneeka's death. lsma's belief that
"(Aneeka) knew everything about her rights and nothing about the fragility of her place in the
world" is shared by lsmene, who believed that it was not a woman's place to fight against men.
Through the conflicting views of their place in society, Shamsie represents lsma and Aneeka’s conflict
as a result of the expectations for them to hide who they are in society. Shamsie similarly commends
Aneeka’s dedication to her family by travelling to bury Parvaiz despite the demonising media
portrayal of him as an unrepentant terrorist. Aneeka’s loyalty to Parvaiz is demonstrated in the
rhetorical question she asks lsma, ''Don't look at me like that. If you liked him you should have
done it yourself. Why didn’t you love our brother enough to do it yourself?'' The emotive language
emphasizes Aneeka's devotion to her brother and links it to Antigone’s willingness to sacrifice herself
for Polynices. So we can see that the tension between lsma and Aneeka is a result of the
unsympathetic and harsh light that British society casted on all Muslims and the state’s influence
in a person’s identity, loyalties and morals. Shamsie condemns the British state for its influence on
lsma’s conformity that resulted in Aneeka’s final fate.

Parvaiz – Shamsie’s HOME FIRE represents how the flaws and morality of man can be
deteriorated by differences in social and personal values.
Lonely, sheltered, naïve young man – lives within a matriarchal family – dominated by
women, successful, strong-willed women – isolated and feels like a failure – easily
manipulated by Farooq. The quote in CAPITAL LETTERS IS A REITERATION OF THE FEAR
WITHIN SOCIETY existed at that time ASKING PEOPLE TO REPORT THEIR NEIGHBOURS IF
THEY SAW ANYTHING SUSPICIOUS. USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS – emphasises the fear that
interest in anything to do with father’s “jihadist” past engendered Parvaiz – symbolic of all
Muslims – fear instilled. (Example – Composer herself)

Parvaiz journey to radicalisation:

- p127 - Father of Parvaiz – The impact of a lack of father on Parvaiz - The story of the
father becomes an instrument of “seduction”
- Familial feeling – provides him with a sense of identity and belonging
- Note the parallels between the 'seductions' of the title characters of in these two
sections.
- Note that Parvaiz's radicalisation is imagined by Aneeka in terms of a secret affair.
- The impact of absent father (Parvaiz) and present father (Eamonn).
p169 –Parvaiz’s troubled emotions, “my will was in one direction, but my hands couldn’t
follow,” as his conflicting loyalties (inner conflict) gave him a disorientated mental state,
unable to clearly find purpose.

V) FEMALE SUBVERSION OF SOCIETAL NORMS AND THEIR

UNWAVERING DETERMINATION TO CHALLENGE ESTABLISHED
AUTHORITY
Both texts’ protagonist is a female rebel
Both Kamila Shamsie in HOME FIRE and Sophocles in ANTIGONE depict female protagonists
who defy societal norms and exhibit unwavering determination to challenge established
authority. Through their narratives, the authors invite a critical examination of gender roles,
societal constraints, and the consequences of rebellion in patriarchal societies.

In HOME FIRE, Shamsie presents Aneeka who subvert societal expectations and confront the
limitations imposed on them as women. Aneeka's refusal to conform to the prescribed roles
of women in her society and her relentless pursuit of justice for her brother challenge
patriarchal norms. Her unwavering determination to challenge established authority,
especially Karamat, signifies her resilience and rebellion against oppressive structures.

Similarly, in ANTIGONE, Sophocles portrays the eponymous character as a symbol of

defiance and rebellion against patriarchal authority. Antigone's decision to bury her brother
Polynices despite King Creon's decree showcases her steadfast commitment to familial duty
and moral principles, moral obligation and Religious obligation. By challenging the male-
dominated power structures and defying societal expectations, Antigone asserts her agency
and questions the legitimacy of the patriarchal order.

Both works shed light on the societal constraints imposed on women and the consequences
they face when they deviate from prescribed gender roles. A critical examination of gender
roles in patriarchal societies is prompted through the protagonists' actions, which often lead
to tragic outcomes. Both authors raise important questions about the limitations and
repercussions faced by women who challenge established norms and authority.

Furthermore, these narratives (that shape our world 😊) invite readers to reflect on the
complexities of rebellion and its potential to bring about social change. By showcasing the
indomitable spirits of their female protagonists, Shamsie and Sophocles accentuate the
importance of questioning oppressive structures and highlight the potential for
transformation and resistance within patriarchal societies.

Hence, we can see that both Shamsie and Sophocles portray female protagonists who
subvert societal norms and challenge established authority. Their narratives invite critical
examinations of gender roles, societal constraints, and the consequences of rebellion in
patriarchal societies, prompting readers to reflect on the limitations faced by women who
challenge such norms and the potential for transformative change.
EXAMPLES THAT ILLUSTRATE THE SUBVERSION OF SOCIETAL NORMS AND THE UNWAVERING
DETERMINATION OF THE FEMALE PROTAGONISTS TO CHALLENGE ESTABLISHED AUTHORITY.
You will need to look at the actions of each character, and how these actions question
gender roles, societal constraints, and the consequences of rebellion in patriarchal societies.
In HOME FIRE, Aneeka defies societal expectations by actively seeking justice for her brother
Parvaiz, who joined a jihadi group. She challenges the authority of Karamat, a powerful
politician, and questions the treatment of Muslims in British society. Aneeka's actions
demonstrate her unwavering determination to challenge established authority and
dismantle patriarchal structures.
Similarly, in ANTIGONE, the character of Antigone rebels against King Creon's decree and
insists on burying her brother Polynices. Despite facing the threat of punishment and death,
Antigone remains unwavering in her commitment to familial duty and her defiance against
the patriarchal power of the state. Her actions challenge the authority of a male-
dominated society and question the legitimacy of its laws.
In HOME FIRE, Isma, the elder sister of Aneeka and Parvaiz, also challenges societal norms.
As a Muslim woman, she confronts stereotypes and prejudices while pursuing her education
and forging her own path. Isma's determination to pursue her dreams and assert her
independence reflects her defiance against societal constraints and gender expectations.
Antigone's sister, Ismene, initially hesitates to join Antigone in defying Creon's orders.
However, her eventual decision to stand by Antigone's side and share in her fate
demonstrates a shift in her character, as she also challenges societal expectations and
embraces rebellion against patriarchal authority.

Hijab SYMBOL
While the word hijab has a range of meanings, it is most often used to describe the head
covering or headscarf worn in public by some Muslim women to cover their hair. It is used to
maintain modesty and privacy, primarily from men who are not family members. Characters
like Hira, Karamat, and Eamonn view the hijab as a symbol of female oppression—of men
dictating the dress and modesty of women. But for Isma and Aneeka, both of whom wear
hijabs, the hijab becomes something different: a symbol of pride in one’s faith, and a symbol
of female empowerment. As Aneeka says to Eamonn, “I get to choose which parts of me I
want strangers to look at, and which are for you.” Thus, the hijab represents the way that
Muslim people (especially women) are often stereotyped as a homogenous group, when in
reality they are all individuals with their own views and beliefs. From the outside, the hijab
might seem like a simple emblem of Muslim conservatism, but to specific women like Aneeka
 and Isma, it’s a way to express their unique interpretations of their faith and claim
ownership over their own sexuality.

The Parachutist – Icarus SYMBOL

The parachutist represents both Eamonn and Parvaiz’s failed attempts to live up to or
outshine their fathers. The morning that Isma meets Eamonn, she looks through her skylight
and notices a parachutist descending through the sky. Isma notes that the image reminds
her of Icarus, “hurtling down, his father, Daedalus, following too slowly to catch the
vainglorious boy.” This is a nod to HOME FIRE’s roots in ancient Greek mythology: in the
myth, Icarus is the headstrong son of the brilliant inventor Daedalus, who builds wax wings
for himself and his son so that they can fly. But when Icarus flies higher and higher out of
pride, he flies too close to the sun, his wings melt, and he falls to his death. Both Eamonn
and Parvaiz are analogues of Icarus, as they take desperate actions to try and live up to the
legacies their fathers, Karamat and Adil, have laid out for them. In each son’s case, these
attempts ultimately lead to own their deaths.

SUMMARY OF NOVEL – not that anyone in MY class has not read the novel.
(Source – Lit Charts)
Twenty-eight-year-old Isma Pasha is detained at Heathrow Airport, where she is held and
interrogated for two hours, singled out specifically for her hijab and her Muslim background
even though she is a British citizen. After officers question her on whether she considers herself
British, she is allowed to board the plane to Boston, where she will be pursuing a PhD in
sociology under an old professor of hers, Hira Shah.
Isma spends her days working and reading in a coffee shop, where she befriends 24-year-
old Eamonn Lone, who is also from London. Isma recognizes Eamonn as the son of Karamat
Lone, a British politician who, though he is Muslim and has a Pakistani background, has largely
made British Muslims feel like he has turned his back on them in order to gain support of the
wider British public. Eamonn and Isma become friends over the next few weeks, and Isma
grows romantically interested in Eamonn as well, even though Isma quickly realizes that
Eamonn has little understanding of his Muslim or Pakistani heritage. When Karamat is
appointed Home Secretary of the U.K., Isma admits that she knows who Eammon’s father is,
and that she is critical of his treatment of his Muslim constituents. As a person who looks up to
his father a great deal, Eamonn grows cold toward her as a result.
That night, Isma is woken by a call from her 19-year-old sister, Aneeka, who is extremely upset
after finding out that Isma was the one to report their brother, Parvaiz, to the police. Aneeka
feels completely betrayed, even though Isma assures her that the police would have found out
about what Parvaiz had done anyway and that she was trying to protect Aneeka. Aneeka says
that Isma has made Parvaiz unable to come home, and she tells Isma not to contact her
anymore. Upset, Isma texts Eamonn, wanting comfort and to explain her perspective more
fully. Isma tells him that her father, Adil, left her family to become a jihadi in Bosnia. He was
imprisoned in Bagram and then died while being transported to Guantánamo. When her family
tried to approach Karamat, a new Member of Parliament at the time, to find out more
information about Adil’s death, Karamat said that they were “better off without him.” In the
present, Eamonn apologizes to Isma, but he still defends his father’s actions. As they part,
Eamonn tells Isma that he is returning to London and offers to deliver M&Ms that Isma was
planning to send to Aunty Naseem, a neighbour with whom Aneeka is currently staying.
Back in London, Eamonn delivers the M&Ms to Aunty Naseem and meets Aneeka, who is
instantly suspicious of him because of his father. But when he leaves, Aneeka follows him and
asks him to take her to his apartment. Eamonn does so, and when they arrive, Aneeka takes off
her hijab and the two have sex. The next morning, Aneeka tells him that she wants to keep their
relationship a secret, and he agrees. This also means that Aneeka will not give Eamonn her cell
phone number, nor can he find her online.
A few weeks pass, and their relationship deepens, though occasionally they also butt heads
over Karamat’s attitudes towards Muslims. Eamonn gives her keys to his apartment, and they
get to know each other better. Eamonn is amazed at the fact that Aneeka can be so devoted in
her prayer and yet still have so much control over and freedom in her own sexuality. Eamonn
even suggests to Aneeka that he wants to propose to her. Aneeka then admits to Eamonn that
her twin brother Parvaiz left to go to Raqqa, Syria, the previous year, to join ISIS’s media unit.
At first Eamonn is extremely hurt, particularly after realizing that this is why she pursued him in
the first place, but Aneeka assures Eamonn that she truly loves him, and that she just wants to
get her brother home.
Eamonn approaches his father, telling him about Aneeka and then about Parvaiz. Karamat
immediately grows furious with how Eamonn has been completely blinded by Aneeka, and he
tells Eamonn that he cannot see Aneeka again.
The perspective then shifts to Parvaiz, hopping between the present and the events that led to
his leaving for ISIS. The previous fall, he was approached by a man named Farooq, who told him
that he had heard stories of heroism about Adil. Parvaiz eagerly listens to Farooq, excited to
hear about his father as a hero rather than as a “feckless husband,” as his mother, Zainab,
and grandmother always told him before their deaths when he and Aneeka were 12 years old.
Farooq teaches him about the conflict between Islam and Christianity, and he often talks about
how to be a man. One day, Farooq invites Parvaiz over to his flat, and two cousins chain Parvaiz
to the floor in a squatting position for hours before waterboarding him. Parvaiz is at first
horrified, but then he realizes that this torture makes him feel connected to his father for the
first time, and so he asks to be tortured again. Over time, Farooq convinces Parvaiz to come to
Syria with him to find more people who knew his father.
Parvaiz creates a cover story about getting a job on a popular music show in Pakistan, then
leaves for Syria. When he arrives, Farooq takes his passport and leaves for the front lines before
Parvaiz realizes how little information he’s been given. He undergoes months of training, then
joins the media unit of ISIS. He also learns that Aneeka and Isma know where he has gone, and
that MI5 is now monitoring them. Parvaiz recognizes that he has become like his father only in
his “abandonment of a family who had always deserved better than him.” Parvaiz is taken out
for a field recording, but when he realizes this means filming an execution, he grows queasy and
cannot watch. In another incident, Parvaiz sees a woman pinned underneath a wall that has
been bombed, but because she is not wearing a face veil, he is not allowed to approach her
even as she begs for help. This is a turning point, as he realizes the horrible mistake he has
made. He calls Aneeka, who tells him to get to Istanbul, Turkey, to go to the British consulate.
A few weeks later, he and Farooq take a trip to Istanbul to pick up new recruits and to buy
media equipment. When Farooq leaves Parvaiz alone in the electronics store, Parvaiz runs out
and takes a cab to try to get to the British consulate. He calls Aneeka, who says that she will fly
to Turkey and tells him to wait for her. He also receives a text from Farooq, implying that
Farooq is coming after him. Realizing that it is unlikely that they will let Aneeka onto a plane, he
approaches the British consulate alone, desperate to get home. Before he steps inside, he is
shot and killed by Farooq.
Aneeka is overwhelmed with grief after learning of Parvaiz’s death, and she refuses to be
comforted by Isma, who flies home immediately. They watch stories mount about Parvaiz,
calling him “the latest name in the string of Muslims from Britain who have joined ISIS.” The
news then shows a clip of Karamat, who says that he has revoked the citizenship of all dual
nationals who have left Britain to “join our enemies.” He says that Parvaiz’s British citizenship
has been revoked and that he will be buried in Pakistan. Policemen then come to interview
Aneeka about her relationship with Eamonn. She admits she pursued him because she thought
he could help get her brother home. Isma is appalled to learn of the relationship and the reason
for it. Despite Isma’s attempts to reconcile with Aneeka, Aneeka refuses to be comforted
because she believes that Isma is the reason that Parvaiz could not come home and is now
dead.
More articles come out about the story: one quotes Isma, who says that she and Aneeka were
shocked and horrified to learn that Parvaiz had joined ISIS, and that she immediately informed
the Counter Terrorism Command. Another article centres on the fact that Parvaiz’s father also
fought with jihadi groups. A third article comes out, explaining that Karamat’s office revealed
Aneeka and Eamonn’s affair in the name of transparency. The article describes Aneeka as
Parvaiz’s accomplice, having hunted down Eamonn to try and convince Karamat to return her
brother to Britain. Meanwhile, Aneeka applies for a Pakistani passport and goes to Karachi to
retrieve Parvaiz’s body.
The story shifts perspective once more, to Karamat. Eamonn, who is now staying with friends,
calls Karamat and tells him that his actions do not look good from the outside. Eamonn
continues to try to talk through the politics, but Karamat dismisses him, telling him not to try to
“develop a spine,” and he also denigrates Aneeka. After the call, Karamat watches the Pakistani
news, and he sees that Parvaiz’s body is delivered to a park near the British Deputy High
Commission, where Aneeka is holding vigil. She implores Karamat and the Prime Minister for
justice. The Prime Minister and Karamat refuse to allow Parvaiz’s body to return, a decision
which is supported by Parliament.
The next morning, Eamonn arrives in Pakistan. Eamonn has also released a video, criticizing
Karamat’s decision and supporting Aneeka, whom he describes as his fiancée. He says that
Karamat’s actions are due to his own “personal animus”—a phrase which deeply hurts Karamat.
Articles are released in the morning papers, painting Karamat as an ambitious son of
immigrants who married into wealth, used his identity as a Muslim to win elections, and then
left it behind when it was no longer valuable.
Karamat returns home to be with his wife, Terry, and his daughter, Emily. After talking through
the situation with Terry, he comes to the realization that he should allow Aneeka to bring
Parvaiz’s body back to Britain. Soon after, his security detail receives word of a threat. Karamat,
Terry, and Emily are taken to the safe room in his house, then released when they find out that
the threat wasn’t intended for them.
In Pakistan, news outlets capture Eamonn’s arrival in the park. When he approaches Aneeka,
two men run up to him and lock a belt of explosives around his waist. Everyone else starts to
flee, but Aneeka approaches him and holds him. For a moment they are “two lovers in a park,
[…] at peace.”